3 ms·
On my Linux and BSD machines I tend to run small X setups, without Gnome or anything. When I first used a pi about 10 years ago, I was surprised at the poor pe
by asveikau 4y ago
On my Linux and BSD machines I tend to run small X setups, without Gnome or anything.
When I first used a pi about 10 years ago, I was surprised at the poor performance. I thought about the X desktops I used 10 years before that (so 20 years ago), and about how their hardware was much worse than a pi. Yet it worked better.
I think there's a few reasons for that.
- Most obviously, software has bloated. This should be less so on a non-DE setup like I typically use, but, seems to be the case still. Within that, I can divide into:
-- actual software bloat. Something like gtk+ is nowhere near as lean as it used to be
-- the fact that the modern web is much more resource intensive than it used to be. It wasn't feasible to browse the web despite being a better CPU than I used for the web many years ago.
-- I think I was using framebuffer based graphics drivers, at full HD. So maybe I paid a price for that, and a proper GPU accelerated X would do better
- SD cards are slow. Maybe disk access over USB would do better.
- musicale 4y ago> It wasn't feasible to browse the web despite being a better CPU than I used for the web many years ago. Sad but true. Browsers (and Electron-style apps) gorge on CPU and memory and then want more. Office 365 on a 3 GHz x86 seems about as responsive as desktop Word would have been on an 8 MHz 68K. > I think I was using framebuffer based graphics drivers, at full HD. So maybe I paid a price for that, and a proper GPU accelerated X would do better Makes a big difference. > SD cards are slow. Maybe disk access over USB would do better USB is much better (as long as it's not a slow USB flash drive.) Also Linux distributions constantly write to the filesystem, which is annoying and probably contributes to the issue that turning off or rebooting a Pi can destroy the SD card.